I know people are going to jump down my throat for such a negative post after such a positive win, but man Dunta looked bad out there. This guy just can't win at the top of his route, unlike Samuel and Grimes. McCluster was abusing him a number of times. This is something to monitor going forward this year.

As I've said before, when this team faces teams that their top wideout is also their primary slot receiver, this defense coudl be in a lot of trouble if this is all that Dunta is capable of there.

plus, our 10 million dollar midget left in the 4th qtr of the First Game.

yeah, he 'deserved' a multi-year contract

Wow its rare that Fun Gus and I disagree but yeah I don't like that post. Grimes is the real deal and will be fine. As for Dunta, he was shaky as usual but its nothing new. Falcons have survived poor nickel corner play.

plus, our 10 million dollar midget left in the 4th qtr of the First Game.

yeah, he 'deserved' a multi-year contract

Wow its rare that Fun Gus and I disagree but yeah I don't like that post. Grimes is the real deal and will be fine. As for Dunta, he was shaky as usual but its nothing new. Falcons have survived poor nickel corner play.

Emmitt, with respect: all we know now is that is has been labeled a 'calf issue'...

If that's the case, and he is back 100% next monday, then I wont worry too much..

But he injured himself last year. For all we know, he may have torn his achilles: if that is the case, he will never be the same. The Falcons are notoriously tight lipped ( justifyingly so ) about injuries...

BUt the fact remains, he got injured in his first real NFL game back. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence for his play 3 years down the road. Which is why I think it was wise to sign him to a 'one year, dont break your dick' contract.

Im not a Grimes hater. I dont even mind his lippy wife..But he's just not worth a long term contract.

All that gymnastics can only take you so far. Eventually these bigger WR's are going to take a toll..we will see...

Well, clearly from that post fun gus, at least one of your feet was already hanging off the Grimes bandwagon, ready to jump off at the nearest chance.

Like others, I think you've completely misread that report from last January about the Falcons being disappointed that Grimes did not play, as disappointed in Grimes because he did not play.

And thus that perception of Grimes colors your perception of Grimes today. Injuries can't really be factor in justifying (or not) roster decisions. Trying to construe this as a durability issue that could have been foreseen, and thus it was smart to not pay Grimes based off that is crazy.

Just like it would be equally crazy to say the Falcons wasted a 5th round pick on Bradie Ewing because he tore his ACL on his first NFL snap. If Ewing was a wasted draft pick, it will be for issues not related to durability/injuries. Just like if the Falcons were smart to hold off paying Grimes, it will be for other reasons as well.

Well, clearly from that post fun gus, at least one of your feet was already hanging off the Grimes bandwagon, ready to jump off at the nearest chance.

Like others, I think you've completely misread that report from last January about the Falcons being disappointed that Grimes did not play, as disappointed in Grimes because he did not play.

And thus that perception of Grimes colors your perception of Grimes today. Injuries can't really be factor in justifying (or not) roster decisions. Trying to construe this as a durability issue that could have been foreseen, and thus it was smart to not pay Grimes based off that is crazy.

Just like it would be equally crazy to say the Falcons wasted a 5th round pick on Bradie Ewing because he tore his ACL on his first NFL snap. If Ewing was a wasted draft pick, it will be for issues not related to durability/injuries. Just like if the Falcons were smart to hold off paying Grimes, it will be for other reasons as well.

really? Cmon Pudge. Be reasonable.

I'm thinking here is a guy who is 29: a smallish CB who uses his vaulting ability to break up plays against much,much taller players. He was injured last year.

Now, in the 4th qtr of the FIRST game, this smallish 29 year old 'jumper' just limped to the locker room.

Brady Ewing? a 5th round pick? VS what Grimes got on his tender? If that is not the definition of 'apples/oranges', what is? Was Brady Ewing 'supposed' to be the answer? Of course not. The BEST Ewing could have done is replace Ovie: what exactly did Ovie do different for the Rams today? From where I sat, we didn't really 'feature' Turner ( thus not requiring his security blanket ) until the game was 'in hand'.

Look, if this 10 million dollar man doesn't play the next game: and were floating Owens out there against a 'dominant' Peyton ( remains to be seen) Im callin BS whether or not he held out.

I'm just saying fun gus that if you think that the Falcons were right to not pay Grimes, then there are better reasons to justify that opinion, but injury should not be part of it. As you said, there are those reasons such as he's 29, you believe his physical skillset is going to start or is already deteriorating, his size, etc. That's all fine and good. I'd dispute on some of those issues (my trump card in such a hypothetical debate would be The Dunta Robinson Defense), but I don't fault you for having such an opinion.

I just think it's silly to always try and draw corollaries between injuries. Sometimes those corollaries exist (such as if a player re-injures the same knee, or successive concussions), but often times they don't exist. Injuries are completely random. But now all of a sudden because Grimes finished last season injured, if/when he suffers one of those random injuries in the future, it was foreseen from the get-go.

Basically you can't go back in time to a hypothetical situation where Thomas Dimitroff said the following in a team meeting, "We are going to pass on giving Grimes an extension because we're afraid he's going to get hurt again." That can be said of EVERY SINGLE player on the roster if TD thinks like that. And thus if you're going to applaud TD for his decision, then it must begin with TD saying "We are going to pass on giving Grimes an extension because ..." and it needs to be something else that actually makes sense in January as it does now in September.

The Ewing example is same because you can't you a present day injury to make an argument about a decision that should have or should not have happened in the past. You judge the soundness of a decision based off known (or those that should have been known) factors that existed at the time of the decision. Grimes present (then future) calf injury is not one of those known factors.

Basically you can't go back in time to a hypothetical situation where Thomas Dimitroff said the following in a team meeting, "We are going to pass on giving Grimes an extension because we're afraid he's going to get hurt again." That can be said of EVERY SINGLE player on the roster if TD thinks like that. And thus if you're going to applaud TD for his decision, then it must begin with TD saying "We are going to pass on giving Grimes an extension because ..." and it needs to be something else that actually makes sense in January as it does now in September..

totally disagree. Again your saying 'injuries can happen to ANYBODY on the roster'.

But injuries often happen to guys pushing 30, who make thier living doing somersaults and high jumps competing with 6 2 WR's....

We dont 'expect' 5th round FB's to 'get injured: but we also dont give them 10 million!

But injuries do happen. And it seems like you're pointing the finger at Grimes specifically as if it's his fault that he's injured.

Whether you think he was worth the long-term deal or not is not really what I care about. I'm just saying you saying, "I don't think he was worth the long-term deal and this injury is the reason why" IMHO is the flimsiest possible justification for that opinion. Just like if I said, "I don't think Bradie Ewing was a good choice in Round 5 because he tore his ACL last month."

The Falcons could certainly be in a situation come 2013 that letting Grimes walk is the smartest move. If this is a serious injury then that may very well be the straw that broke the camel's back. But this injury has no effect on whether that decision for 2012 was right or not.

I think you could say this injury has bearing on whether it was wis eor not when you take into accounthis age and that he was hurt to close last year. Now, you know I'm never gonna say we should not have signed the Man Who Invented Football but, clearly, age and past injury history are factors with any player. We've rolled the dice a few times with injured players in recen tyears and most times come up bad--Jerry, Overstreet, Edwards--a few that just pop into my head. OTOH, aside from last year, BG has been remarkably sturdy given his size.

This may just be a patented Pudge is arguing over semantics and/or over-analyzing trivial details type of deal, but...

...From this point forward, I'd agree that injuries have to be factored into Brent Grimes future in Atlanta. But until today, I don't think that should have been the case because in 7 years in the league being hurt once does not make you injury-prone. Could you have made the argument that a 29-year old Brent Grimes is more likely to be injured in the future than a 24-year old equivalent? Sure. But that is more than balanced out that Grimes is a proven performer, vs. his hypothetical 24-yr. old counterpart who would be an unknown.

I'm happy to see Grimes on the field every game, before his injury he did a nice job on Bowe. He will be back and we will be just fine. Also, i'm not to worried about Dunta, is he worth his contract no, but he is a solid #2 corner and we have a good back up waiting in the wings.

_________________When life gives you lemons, find some salt and tequila then invite me!

Grimes didn't sit out the Giants game, he wasn't cleared to play. This foolish notion that Grimes he purposefully sat himself to avoid injury is the most ridiculous myth completely fabricated by ignorance I've heard in a long time.

Grimes didn't sit out the Giants game, he wasn't cleared to play. This foolish notion that Grimes he purposefully sat himself to avoid injury is the most ridiculous myth completely fabricated by ignorance I've heard in a long time.

"In regards to Grimes, it's not hard to imagine the coaching staff still being irked by his sitting out the Giants game, even though he's arguably the best Falcons cornerback since Deion Sanders and likely to cash in on a big-time deal somewhere."

At this point, Im just baiting you Pudge. You are probably right about him sitting himself out...But I do think had this not been a contract year, he definitely WOULD have played: he played 4 games on an injured hip in 2010, and part of the reason he needed surgery last year is he played injured as well. HIs wife didn't help issues with the public perception, though. And I guess someone in the FO shot a couple across the bow in the offseason.

For the first time ever, my good buddy Fun Gus is annoying me. The whole karma is a bitch thing about Grimes is so uncalled for. The guy played his heart out and came from the bottom. When Manning throws for 350 and 3 scores, you'll be having flashbacks on how much you miss Grimes.

See the beef I have fun gus, is if you buy into the idea that Grimes sat out the game, or may not have pushed himself as hard to get back in time, then it's not just a condemnation of Brent Grimes, but it's a sweeping condemnation of our entire organization.

Because then that means that knowing this full well, that the Falcons powers that be (Thomas Dimitroff & Mike Smith) decided that despite this lack of a team-first attitude by Grimes, they decided to reward him with a guaranteed $10 million contract.

Also if you assume that the team doctors did clear him to play, and the fact that Grimes refused to do, that basically is indicative that the front office and coaching staff are incompetent, given if that was indeed the situation, then this team reacted completely the wrong way by giving Grimes that money.

Which is a huge change in how they have handled these situations in the past. In 2009, the team let Michael Boley walk because he did not play with a lot of effort and mental toughness in 2008. Basically like players like DeAngelo Hall, Boley didn't buy into the team first concept, and was not rewarded with a fat contract because of it.

And as I said many months ago, I don't question Grimes willingness to sacrifice for the team. He came back 2 weeks earlier than he should have to play against the Saints in Week 16. Had he sat out that game, he probably would have played against the Giants. But he fought his way back to try and help this team win the division and beat a rival. That had nothing to do with helping out his contract situation. And unfortunately, he re-injured himself in that game and it cost him against the Giants.

See the beef I have fun gus, is if you buy into the idea that Grimes sat out the game, or may not have pushed himself as hard to get back in time, then it's not just a condemnation of Brent Grimes, but it's a sweeping condemnation of our entire organization.

Because then that means that knowing this full well, that the Falcons powers that be (Thomas Dimitroff & Mike Smith) decided that despite this lack of a team-first attitude by Grimes, they decided to reward him with a guaranteed $10 million contract.

Also if you assume that the team doctors did clear him to play, and the fact that Grimes refused to do, that basically is indicative that the front office and coaching staff are incompetent, given if that was indeed the situation, then this team reacted completely the wrong way by giving Grimes that money.. He came back 2 weeks earlier than he should have to play against the Saints in Week 16. Had he sat out that game, he probably would have played against the Giants. But he fought his way back to try and help this team win the division and beat a rival. That had nothing to do with helping out his contract situation. And unfortunately, he re-injured himself in that game and it cost him against the Giants.

Okay, let me try to 'splain myself.

First off, neither you, I, Emmitt, or the 'media' know exactly what happened. All we have is 'speculation'.

When the media reports surfaced saying he sat himself, you were adamant that this was a trial balloon 'leaked' to gain leverage in off season negotiations. And IIRC, you were not 'pleased' about it. Right? For the record, I dont know what really happened.

BUt, you cant on one hand say 'look at how this FO and coaching staff has dealt with 'non team players' in the past, and at the same time accuse them of leaking an untruth in order to gain negotiating leverage. Because where have the done this despicable practice in the past? Since 2009? That is called 'cognitive dissonance'.

Secondly: the idea that the 'team doctors' cleared him to play has alot to do with the diagnosis..

In 2010, when Grimes was having a good year, and wanted to 'prove something, and he injured his hip, do you believe for a second he actually informed the team doctors as to how he really felt? I dont: I think he was 'rub some dirt on it, and get out there'. He might not have told them about how it really felt. As a matter of fact, he probably did JUST THAT when he got 'cleared' for the Saints game.

But, then he reinjured himself: and facing the final game of the season, would YOU want to go out there at 50% against that team, on the road, prior Superbowl winners, in a contract year: with your wife vocally saying you have better 'get paid'?

Grimes has a horrible outing, or gets injured: he doesn't even get the ten million he has now. So dont act like it's out of the question' that these factors weighed in to his decision, and he told the team doctors how he REALLY felt, instead of like in the past: where like so many other players who just want to see the field he downplayed the extent of his inury..

I admit: I dont know and I could probably be wrong. Really, more then probably because I have come to trust your views on injury, and I realize I look at it differently, but it's good to at least hear you out... But some of this sounds like a little bit of good ol-fashioned JockSniffing, and when you got BnB reasonably looking at this situation, that should tell you something.

Weren't you clamoring for locking Grimes up for a 3 year deal this spring? If so: how smart does that look now?

I thought I recalled you criticizing the org for floatng out that rumor about Grimes last year too, Pudge. Seems I recall an article saying the staff wasn't altogether happy with his not playing versus NYG though that could mean lots of things. Heck, I wasn't happy about it either but it doesn't mean I thinking he was dogging it. I just wanted him out there. People said the same thing about Jam32 and karma when he held out after the SB and then blew his knee out. The universe is indifferent. i don't blame these guysyfor trying to get all they can. the only thing I find intolerable is lack of effort. I've never ever seen that from BG.

First, let me quote the exact text written by Dan Parr back in January on this very issue because it's going to become important in a little bit...

Dan Parr wrote:

Our Falcons sources expect CB Brent Grimes, who is due to become an unrestricted free agent this offseason, to be playing for a different team next season.

Grimes, who underwent knee surgery in late November, missed four of the final five games of the regular season as he recovered from the procedure. He practiced on a limited basis two days prior to the Falcons' playoff loss to the Giants, though. The team was expecting him to suit up vs. the Giants, but he was added to the list of inactives the morning of the game and we hear some inside the organization were very surprised, and disappointed, that he didn't play.

However, the Falcons were encouraged by the performance of CBs Dominique Franks and Chris Owens down the stretch, and the team will be looking to have the cap flexibility to re-sign some of its other core players. We hear that Grimes, the team's top corner, is likely to price himself out of the team's range.

Onward...

fun gus wrote:

When the media reports surfaced saying he sat himself, you were adamant that this was a trial balloon 'leaked' to gain leverage in off season negotiations. And IIRC, you were not 'pleased' about it. Right? For the record, I dont know what really happened.

BUt, you cant on one hand say 'look at how this FO and coaching staff has dealt with 'non team players' in the past, and at the same time accuse them of leaking an untruth in order to gain negotiating leverage. Because where have the done this despicable practice in the past? Since 2009? That is called 'cognitive dissonance'.

Yes, I did basically say the team leaked this information to create leverage and condemned them for it. But that was based off a key aspect of what Parr wrote, "The Falcons were planning to let Grimes walk because he was deemed too expensive."

My whole point was that if that was the decision the Falcons had already made as of January 13, 2012 when Parr's report was first published, 5 days after their playoff loss to the Giants, then it was because Mr. Parr's sources were doing so with a calculated intent, most likely to due with future potential negotiations. Given how quickly that turnaround was from season's end to "inside sources" made it very fishy. That's not how teams operate, teams have not made firm decisions on the futures of their players 5 days after the season is over. It takes weeks before they come to those types of conclusions.

But guess what? I don't have that opinion any longer. Why?

Because that previous opinion was built with the caveat that Grimes was gone. But Grimes wasn't gone. The team tagged Grimes and not with the mind of shopping him as the original thread suggested, but tagged him fully intending on keeping him.

So really what Parr's report indicates now that we have the value of 7.5 months of hindsight, is that the Falcons had already made the decision that they weren't going to give him a long-term extension.

Which is fine, as I've said there are valid reasons to come to that conclusion, which I don't agree with, but still they make some sense.

fun gus wrote:

Secondly: the idea that the 'team doctors' cleared him to play has alot to do with the diagnosis..

I also think this is the crux of the issue. In Parr's piece, he said the following:

The team was expecting him to suit up vs. the Giants, but he was added to the list of inactives the morning of the game and we hear some inside the organization were very surprised, and disappointed, that he didn't play.

And I think you read from that essentially Grimes and the Falcons had gone to bed Saturday night expecting him to play vs. the Giants, and then in the morning wake up to discover that wasn't the case, presumably because Grimes had slept on it and made the decision to sit out.

But I think you're missing something here. First, there's absolutely no reason to think that Saturday night that the doctors had cleared him. What happened Saturday night was probably something along the lines of the doctors saying something doctor-y like "if the swelling goes down by tomorrow morning, you can play." And so those same "inside sources" that are discussing the ins and outs of the Falcons organization probably then assumed, "Oh Grimes is tough as nails, no way he doesn't play regardless of the swelling."

Then guess what, when the doctors checked out Grimes Sunday morning to make sure he was ready to go, the hypothetical swelling did not go down, and thus they could not clear him.

Now, maybe you could say maybe the doctors still left a very small window that with a heavy taping and a large dosage of cortisone, they could give Grimes a shot if he was dying to be on the field. Something with the warning that even with it, you're still only going to be 70% of yourself and you're going to need surgery again in 2 weeks, and the less you do means that you'll have a quicker turnaround on your surgery on the back-end.

And given that situation, if the team doctors essentially gave that lay-up to Grimes, basically saying "Given my Hyppocratic Oath, I have to tell you these likely outcomes but as I Falcon fan/employee, I also want to do what's best for the team."

And then Grimes then said, "Nah."

Even then I would not blame Grimes for not being ride-or-die, and would still want him back.

See the problem is that fun gus, you bought into the "Character Concerns" BS about Grimes, a guy that has epitomized high football character for 5 years. And all of a sudden because of this report which IMHO you misread, you do a complete 180.

That's exactly what propaganda is supposed to do. Make you think things that your normal logical brain would immediately reject. And all of sudden Grimes is a bad locker room/character guy, especially in comparison to some of the questionable character guys that we have on this team, that we had showed no intent to dump.

And so to me given the fishy nature of when this inside source decided to "leak" this info to Mr. Parr, that it was all part of their propoganda program. My paranoid mind told me that mean that in a backroom this was said:

"If we're going to convince this fan base that getting rid of their fan favorite, Brent "Optimus" Grimes, is a good idea, we have to get on the ball as early as possible. Johnson, call your friends at Pro Football Weekly, we'll give them something juicy..."

"That's all BS. It's their meager attempts to justify their reasoning. The dude was legitimately injured, otherwise he wouldn't have missed practice the entire week. Look, is it a possibility that Grimes was 80% or whatever for that Giants game, and rather than risk re-injury and hurting his free agency potential, he decided to shut it down?

Yeah, that's a definite possibility, if not a likelihood. But guess what? I don't care. Management wouldn't have had that problem if they had taken care of his contract well before hand...I can't see how the Falcons could make the conscious decision to not try and lock up Grimes long-term. The guy has played his tail off the past two years, and definitely earned a contract. And for this to team to come back and say you're "too expensive" really is just the craziest thing I've ever heard...All I'll say is that whatever the consequences of such a move, Thomas Dimitroff and Mike Smith will deserve every bit of it. If a Grimes-less Falcons defense is atrocious next year, and this team limps it's way to a 6-10 season, then so be it.I'm a Falcon fan, but it doesn't mean I have to root for TD and Smitty. f*** them."

Jocksniffing 101.

So lets see: you got Pudge, without anything resembling 'proof', accusing TD and Company of engaging a media personality to print an untruth with the purpose being to gain leverage, and that's one way to look at it.

Or, you could just take Parr at his word: as a guy who heard something which may have been true, and thus the powers that be decided to tag him, give him a one year deal: and turns out they were right, saved this team 30 million dollars over the next three years.

I'll go with door #2. Because in the offseason Mrs Grimes social media bitchin' leads me to believe if this front office did something that despicable: oooh we would have heard about it by now.

Grimes was a good player, and a good Falcon. You even said it was a possibility he sat himself when he could have been 80% ready to play: and you would not fault him because it was all TD's fault for not showing him the $$ by that time.

Well, looks like TD was right, and you were wrong. And I'll say it again: IF he sat himself that game, f*ck HIM, not TD or Smitty. And 'deserves' got everything to do with that. He missed out on his big payday. He will never be the same player. He will be lucky to get 1/4th the contract he got this year.

Like I said, my previous accusations were based upon the belief that the Falcons had already on January 13 decided to move on from Brent Grimes and go with a secondary that featured Dunta Robinson as their No. 1 corner.

Which with the value of hindsight we know was not the case. This team not only retained Grimes, but also acquired Asante Samuel to upgrade the position.

So yes, if it just comes down to I wanted to give Grimes a long-term deal, and because of his most recent injury that can now with hindsight be deemed a mistake, then yes I'm wrong. Of course given the fact that injuries are random occurrences and thus there's no guarantee that had we given him his contract that he would have gotten hurt, doesn't factor into it. Which is the earlier point I was trying to make, that injuries aren't destined to occur, and thus determining whether decisions in hindsight were good or bad based around injuries, is flawed.

But yes, at the core you are right if the Falcons had paid Grimes like I wanted them to, and he had suffered this same injury, then they would be up s***'s creek.

But what I want to continue to point out to you fun gus, is this attitude of "I don't think we should pay him because he could get hurt" is an attitude that applies to EVERY SINGLE player in the NFL, and if you took that approach then you would never invest in any player. As well as your notion that Grimes was any more susceptible to a major injury than any other player on this roster is also wrong.

So while you are welcome to a jig that you were right and the great Pudge was wrong, you should also know that you being right is because of some random occurrence, i.e. lightning struck.

Were not going to agree that Grimes, a 29 year old shorty who injured himself last season (and may have chosen to sit out the last game in January when he could have played in and contributed) is not more likely to reinjure himself vs any other guy on the roster.

Can ANYONE on the roster get injured at any time? Sure. But some more then others..Look at Sam Baker: he stands more of a chance to reinjure himself this season then Clabo, IMO. Now, I dont have any cute stats to back that up: but I'm thinking because of the style of play, the position and the injury history that makes some sense..

Now if Clabo goes out next week, does that mean my hypothesis is wrong? Maybe. If Baker goes out and Clabo remains, I would think it has something to do with that back injury last year.

But let's address the 'conspiracy' that the Falcons floated a horrible rumor 6 days after the Giant Fiasco(tm).

Really? This front office doesn't do that crap. I aint buyin it.

What makes MORE sense: TD picks up the phone ( or has one of his lackeys) and call Dan Parr to get him this juicy bit of news that Grimes sat himself.

Then, after the fact we hear no denial from Brent, his agent, or his wife.

Really? HIs wife Miko scooped Schecter by an hour yesterday when she tweeted yesterday @# allbad. She tweeted about him driving home in a 'boot'. She was vocal to get a deal done after the Saints game last year, where he injured himself. She has never been shy to take to Twitter and scorch the Earth. Never.

So I'm supposed to suspend belief and accept that after the front office did this pretty awful thing, lying about Grimes sitting out, affecting his 'value' and such: and at the same time Miko, Brent AND his agent are silent?

OR: what makes more sense?

Grimes ( who has his wife barking at him to bring home the $$ and respect online! ) sits.. He doesnt injure himself in the playoffs: he doesnt look awful since he is only playing at 80%, he assures himself at least a 10 million dollar tender. And Dan Parr actually gets a piece of true information from one of his sources? That it did not come from Flowery Branch, but by some ballboy or training room dude...Like so many others do that happens everyday in the media.

That makes a little more sense to me.

When Grady Jackson was accused of 'freelancing' by Petrino, he went of the Two Live Stews and denied it. And two days later he was cut.

Yes, you're right Sam Baker's past back problems make him susceptible to future back problems. Baker has injured his back in 2 of the past 4 seasons, and therefore any future back problems can be attributed to past ones. But if Sam Baker suffers turf toe, you do understand that his past injury history had nothing to do with that?

Grimes injured his right knee last year. And I believe IINM that he tore the Achilles on his left leg this year. I'm not a doctor, but I'm fairly sure that they aren't related. One does not affect the other. Achilles injuries are one of the more random injuries to happen, and age is not really a significant factor. None of the risk factors (such as lots of time off) that some have linked to potentially increasing the risks of suffering a torn Achilles were involved with Grimes.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum